Sri v. 1. The state of relangana

...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT No.6 1 The State of Telangana,.Bup by its principal Secretary, Tribat Welfare (LTR) ^ pepartmenr Secrei6riat, t-tvjeoiru;.' """'""' 2. The Additional Aoent to tfr6_Coveinment &, project Officer. ITDA, ^ Bhadrachalam K6ammam orsirici ''"'* ' ' , Ii:r?B:f;:1t 1 ]lr. Tahsildar, Kothagudem Mandal. Khammam District. 5 rhe commissioner 6 Sri Lavidia Gopi Sio.. t-ate ehask;'iJn""o]Siiuroada, occ Aqricurture. R/o 7 Nandutat noaruiar sto-[af" "ir.rdEili,li,'na H No 6_4_7.1, pedda 8 sri Lavidya M-ariva sro fuirt; H['s;;il;l;Lta Banjara, Kothasudem 9. Sri V.Seetharama Red.dy, Sio. Late Gurava Reddy, Occ Agriculture, R/o. 5_8_ ne, Hlt tc Roa;,'bp;;;,6 ii;il; ; Giljl],,[.--,h ]6i0", *"i$,l8[E'J oistrict Bazar, Koth'aourlem Town and' Mandal,"Knrrnram District. I\/andal, Khammhm District. ' "f"i;batW;ii;;, i;il;ii;r, state at Hyderabad Sitampeta Viilaoe Kothagrdfi ,,.,1:, ;ffi "o,*a ^/;;;ikhammam "I Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed by this Hon'bre High court iA wp No. 35276 0f 20'16 dated in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p.VTSHNUVARDHANA REDDy counser for the Respondent Nos.1 To 5: Gp ron bocrnr_ WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent No.6; SRI p.V.RAMANA uounset tor the Respondent No.7: SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the RespondentNos.g & 9: _- I I W.P.NO: 36277 oF 2016 Between: Nandulal Agarwal. S/o Late Dayaram Agarwal Aoed about 55 years' Hindu' R/o H No 6-4-7, p"ia5"i"u#:?;il's;;;* roirun and Mandal Khammam District ...PETITIONER AND Bhldracnatarn K-hammam District' Department. Secretariat' Hyderabad'

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by, its,Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare (LTR) 2. The Additionat ngent'i6'inJ6overnment and project Officer(ITDA) - 3. The Special Deputv i;ll;;6;:T'i6'l Welfare' Paloncha Presentlv at - Af,iOrbchatam Khbmmam district a Ti.r" trnlirolr"rothagudem Ma1!al' (la.mm.afl District' 5. The Commisstoner "Y1'tii'W"if*e A Bhrrkva Ramutu, s/"'Li;li;' siL"o'irJ-3 tl o'1 -i'1Sl2 Chenchupalli " iii;;6; k;it;guaem N4andal Khammam District' T Lavidiva Gopi S/o L,t"'e'il'=iiji'R'o' 5i t-urno'au occ Agriculture R/o ' $;th;;iliuirrage Kot;'aguJem Ir/andal' Khammam district n I avidiva wlariva, slo i"til.'v%, siU;b;;a ocC Rgriculture R/o Seethampeta " b;;i; rioinlsrd"r.n Mandal, Khammam district' , VH;fi; ii;;;h;;v'Slo-Iat"'c'il'e B*o' Aqed 68 Years' occ ;;"' trlt O noiO 6pp Railwav Station' State of Tetanoana Hvderabad' ,d;E Aoriculture R/o 5 8 1:li k6traguoem, Khammam District ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IMANDAN4US declaring the orders in GOMsI\|b43' Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department. dated 7 -10-2016 passed by the 1 st respondent allowing the appeals filed by the unoffrcial respondents in which the orders of the 2nd respondent in CN/A No 1 10/2003, dated 2B-7 -2007 are set aside to the extent that the land admeasuring Ac 2-23 guntas in Sy No 161/2 and dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner with respeci to Sy No 161t2to an extent of AC 2-23 gts situated at Chunchupalli Village' Kothagudem Mandal and directing the official respondents to take the said rands into Government custody as ilregar, arbitrary, unreasonable, without lurisdiction or authority and set aside the same and consequentlydirecttheRespondentsnot-tointerferewiththepetitionersland admeasuring Ac 2-23 Gts in Sy No 161t2 by declaring the provisions of A.P' Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1 969 Rl/V 1/1 970 has no application to the subject lands of the petitioner' l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 44689 OF 20161 Petition under section 15'r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the orders in G.o.[vrs.No. 43, T ribar werfare (LTR) Department, Dated.T- 10-2016 passed by the 1st respondent by not dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.2-23 Gts in sy.No. 16i/2 situated at chunchupali virrage, Kothagudem Mandar, Khammam district by the Respondents, pendrng disposal of the main Writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 4599 oF 2016) Between: Bhukya Ramulu, S/o Lachu, ST.Lambada, H.No.1_2_1512, Chenchupalli Thanda, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District - ...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT No.6 Bhadrachalam, Khammam district. AND 1. The state of rerangana, Rep. by its principar secretary Tribar werfare (LTR) ^ Qepartment, Secretariat, Hyderibad. 2 The Addjtional A-gent to theSovernment and project. Office(ITDA) Bhadrachalarn, Khammam District. 3 rhe special Deputy coilector, Tribar werfare, paroncha, presenfly at 4. The Tahsildar, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. 5. The Commissioner, of Trrbal Welfa16 State oiTelanqana Hvderabad. 6 Lavidiva Gopi, s/o Late Bhaskar Rao, si rimoaJ, b.lino'rr"iiri,irEhl. -'-'" '"- _ Seethampet viilage. Kothagudem Mandat, Xnammim Olit;i"i 7 Lavidiya tMariya, s/o Tu.rsiya, sr Lambada ocJ agncuriuii h)o seethampeta - Banjara, Kothagudem. Mandal, Khammam distrrct. B. V.Seetha Rama Reddy, Slo Late Curava ReOOyAged 68 years, Occ fgricutture Rto S-B-13t1 , Cootie Lane, wt.C.noiO, 6pp n"ir*lv"Slriion Kothagudem, Khammam District. 9 Nandulal 4g?ryat S/o.Lile Dayaram Aganvat-Aged about 55 years, Hindu, R/o H No 6-4-7'1, pedda Bazari Kothagidem Toi,ila;;-tir"djiil;#;r, District "*="tJP,l,BttH ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim orders passed by this Hon'ble High court in wp No. 36277 of 2016 dated 27-10-2016 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.V.HANUMANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos'1 TO 5: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Corn""f for the Respondent No'6: SRI P'V'RAMANA ;;;;;;i Counsel for the Respondent Nos'7 & 8: -- for the Respondent No'9: SRI G'MADHUSUDHAN REDDY w.P.NO :1 8622 0F 2017 Between: V. Seethararna Reddy. S/o Late Gurava- Reddy Aged 68 years occ Agriculture r)o"H.rlo. 5'8-13/1 ' door.--r-in",-M G ho5o, orjp Railway station' kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dist ...'ET.T.ONER AND Kothagudem District' Bhad rad ri-Kothag udem District Deoartment, S-ecretariat. Hyderabad

1. State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare (LTR) 2 i;5 tiiii'Ag"niio co;"l.nmenr & project, officer LT D A Bhadrachalam. r i6. Soecial Dep"uty Cff feciorffWl Paloncha, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District ; i;; i5h;tiLoii,' Criuncrrupallv(M) Bhadradri-Kothasudem District 5 The Revenue rnspeciJi dlo ii]"trnj.itoar. chunc-hupally(M) Bhadradri- O fi[iifvZ-nirutu, S/o tate Lachu r/o H No 1-2-1512, Chunchupalli(VandM) Z 6f'u[vikrantfri, Wlo tate Lachu r/o H No 1-2-15l2, Chunchupalli(VandlVl) a 61,r[vi-eicna sio taie Lichu r/o HNo l-2-15t2, chunchupalli(Vandtttl) g ehu[vl Babu, s6 raie ricnu r/o H. No 1-2-15t2, Chunchupalli(VandM) Bhadiadri-Kothagudem District Bhad-radri-Kothagudem District. Bhadiad ri-Kothag udem District Bhadiadri-Kothagudem District. ...RES'ONDENTS \ Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia ptaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ by the ofMandamusdeclaringthepanchanamadt'27-10-2016conducted respondent no.5 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac 3-12 gts ' in Sy No 161/,1,and161/2situatedatChunchupally(VandM)BhadradriKothagudem District_ is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record, without authority and violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the Rule 7(4) of A.P. Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulation Rules '1969 and consequently set aside the said Panchanama. 16114, l.A. NO: 3 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 29479 0F 20171 Petition under Section i51 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit frred in support of the petition, the High court may be preased extend the interim orders interim orders passed on g.6.2017. l.A. NO: 4 OF 2017 (WP MP. NO:322 00 0F 20171 Petition under section 1s'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to extend the interim orders interim orders passed on 9.6.20.r7 andon2o.7.2017. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017 WVMP. NO: 2470 O F 20171 Between: 1 2 J 4 B*5l3r:][Y[r:i'#",i.ffi :i r/o H No 1 -2- 1 5 t 2' c h u n ch upa II i (Va nd I\r) BHSr#ru,,1:Hi"#"ri;ff ii r/o H N o 1 _2_ 1 5 t 2, c h u n ch upa I I i (Va nd M ) H No 1 -2 - 1 5 t 2, c h u n ch upar r i (Va nd tVr ) Bi55'#-?[1i:lXl1fl 'SS?#"r/o H N o 1 -2- 1 5 t 2, ch u nch u pa r i (Va nd M) B #5f.?:ft ir:,&5:"#:I)i"i1. ...PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS AND 1. State of Telangana. rep. by its principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare (LTR) -- -v'isiv \L"\/ _ Department, Secretariat. l-iyderabad' 2 The Addl lgent to Government & project, Officer l.T.D.A.,,Bhadrachalam, 3 The specia] Dep"yty cctteciorliw) paloncha, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. 4 The Tahasitdar, Cliunchupalty(filll, ehidriOrilfotnlgrO", District. 5 The Revenue tnsoector, o/o the Tah;;id;;, Ch;;c"hupriiylH4i erraaraori Bhadradri-Kothaqudem District Kothagudem Dist;ict, ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS 6 V seethararna Reddy. S/o Late Gurava Reddy Aqed 68 years occ Aqricurture bdp -'tiriil;"';j;iil: r/o H No s-B-13t1.' Cootie Lane M G. Kothagudem. Bhadradri Kothagudem Oiii.- '-- -h;;4, ...RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER Petitron under sectron 'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frred in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to Vacate the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High court in w.p.No_ 1g622 o,f 2017 dated 9-6-2017 in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVI CHANDRA BEJJARAM Corn""f for the Respondent Nos'1 TO 5: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE C"rn""f for the Respondent Nos'6 TO 9: SRI P'V'RAMANA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I o 1 wp 35275 & 35277_20r6 AND wp 18522 2017 N8K, ] THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETIT ION Nos.35276 and 36277 of2O16 AND WRIT PETITION No. 18622 of 2017 COMMON ORDER W.P. Nos. 35276 ot 2016 and 36277 of 2O16 have been filed challenging the orders passed in the Revision petition vide G.o. Ms. No. 43 dated 07.t0.2016. W.p. No. 18622 of 2Ol7 has been filed challenging the Panchanama dated 27.10.20L6, conducted by Respondent No. 5- Tahsildar for resumption of land to the Government pursuant to the orders passed in the Revision petition, i.e., G.O. Ms. No. 43 dated.07.10.2016. In view of courmonality of issue, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by way of this Common Order. For reference and discussion, the averments in Wp.No.352 76 of 2016 are taken. 2' The Petitioner chailenges the order dated 07.10.20\6 passed by the 1't respondent-Revisiori Authority vide G.o.Ms.No. 43, tribal welfar" (LTR) Departmenr. This order allowed the appears filed by unofficial Respondents, thereby setting aside the order passed in cMA No. fio/2003 dated, 28.07.2007 by Respondent No. 2 and dismissing the petitioner,s revision with respect to land admeasuring Acs. 2_23 gts in Sy.No. 161/2, situated at Chunchupalli vi[age, Kothagudem Mandal. The impugned order further directed the said land to be taken in[o govemment custody, which the Petitioner contends is ittegar, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. 2.1 The Petitioner, an agriculrurist, purchased the land in Sy.No. I6tyf (Acs. 2-23 gtsr through an unregistered sare deed dated24.04.1969 wo 35276 & 15277,2015 AND wo 18621 2011 NBK, J 'fhis transactton was from Mr. Katakam Koti Reddy, a non-tribal pattadar' suppofted by Pahanies from 1955-56 to 1957-58 reflecting the vendor's name, and the Petitioner has been in uninterrupted cultivation since the purchase. In I984, land acquisition proceedings rvere initiated (Ref: A4[1O5 of 76 dated 23.07'1g74 and23 07'1984)' including dispossession' The Petitioner filed W.P. No' 13182 of 1984 betbre this Court' and this Courtquashedtheacquisitionnotificationon23.0l.ig86duetodelayed publication under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act'

2.2 ln 2012, regularization proceedings commenced based on a report dated 18.12.2012 by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (TW)' Bhadrachalam. Notice under Form-E was sened in accordance with Rule l0oftheA.P.(SA)Ll.RRules,lg6g.ThePetitionersubrnittedsubstantial documentary evidence, including the Sale Agreement of 1969' tand revenue receipts for multiple years, Pass Book' Pahani extracts from 1968 to 2013, and relevant judgments of the High Court and Supreme Court' thatthetransferpredatedtheRegulation'sapplicability I 03.02.1g10). These documents conlirtned continuous (01 . 12. 1963 possession and clarified that the transaction was between non-tribals' hence outside the scope of the Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulations' establishing

2.3LIRCaseNo.355/85/KGMwasinitiatedbasedonapetition dated 18.07.1985 by Late Bhukya Lachu regarding lands in Sy'Nos' 161/1' 16212, and 163/4- excluding Sy'No' 16l/2' However' in 1993' a second petition by the same individual led to I-TR Case No' 654l93lKGM' includingSy.No.l6l/2.Despitecontradictionsbetvt'eenthetwopetitions' thecaseswereclubbedwithoutproceduralfaimessorcross-examination opportunity, violating principles of natural justice' / / o wp-35275 & 36277-2015 AND wp-18622_2017 NBK, J

2.4 Respondent No. 3, while passing the impugned order on 25'03'1996, faired to summon relevant records or substantiate craims with documentary proof' The order was based on assurnptions and unsupported oral statements by the original petitioneq ignoring settled principles of evidence. Additionalty, the order incorrectly mentioned lancl extents_ listing only Acs. 5-, gts instead of the actuar 9-00 acres involved in the two cases-and unlawfully inctuded Sy.No. 16l/A and 161/2 without issuing Form-E notices for those lands.

2.5 Respondent No. 2, acting as the appellate authority, upheld the order dated 25.03.1996 in a perfunctory manner through CMA No. 11012003 dated 2g'07 '2007 ' wirhour addressing these substantiar procedural and factual irregularities. Neither Respondents No. 2 nor 3 considered the extensive documentary evidence substantiating the Petitioner's possession since 1969 or explained why such evidence was disregarded.

2.6 The petitioner asserts that the findings of all Respondents are erroneous and unsupported by law. Specifically, Resfondent No. I wrongly concluded that the land was government property and accepted the possession ofBhukya Hari Singh during r977-79 as patta rand holder, contradicting revenue records. Moreoveq the observation that the sale occured post-Reguration based on registration date (23.07.rg77) is unsustainable, as the petitioncr,s possession was recorded from 1969 onward.

2.7 The petitioner fuflher states that Respondents had no jurisdiction under Section 3(2)(a) of Reguration r of 1970 to order eviction, especially in absence of any tribar interest in the land. The Lambada community, to which the opposing party belongs, was notified as 4 wp 15275 & 15277,2016 AND wp 18622 2017 NBK,I G.O.Ms.No. 338 dated Scheduled Tribe only on 27 '07 '1977 via and possession. lnterim 15.12.1g7g, which postdates the transaction protection orders were granted throughout the proceedings' including by the Hon'ble High Court, restraining dispossession The current attempt to evict the Petitioner is thus without lawful basis' 3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No 4 (adopted by Respondents 1,,3, and 4) contending that the petitioner has misrepresented G.O.Ms.No.43, Tribal Welfare (LTR) Department dated 07'10'2016 Contrary to his assertion that the order directs the land to be taken into govemment custody, the G'O' clearly states that the land is to be restored to the tegal heirs of Sri Bhukya Harisingh b'v vacating itlegal encroachments, in accordance with Act 9 of lgll ' The pctitioner's claim of purchasing Ac .2.23 grsin Sy'No' 16112 viaan unregistered sale deed dated 24.04.1969 from Sri Koti Reddy is not supporled by the revenue records' As per the pahanis of 1960-61, 1962-63' and 1963-64' rvhite Koti Reddy was recorded as pattadar, Bhukya Harisingh was shou'n as the cultivator'

3.1 It is contended that entries regarding pottt"lon do not confer legat title in scheduled areas' Under Section l7(l) of the Registration Act and relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act' an unregistered sale deed does not create enforceable rights. This position was upheld by High Court in CRP No. 1987 of 1996' dated the Andhra Pradesh

10.08.1998.

3.2 Regarding the petitioner's reliance on W'P' No' 13182 of lgg4, it is contended that the Hon'ble High court did not grant any substantive retief in his favour; rather, it left open the possibility for the govemmenttoacquirethelandbyfollowingdueprocess.Thepetitioner also refers to orders in LTR Case No. 3l9lzOl2lKGM ir.rvolving two non- r) 5 wp 35276 & 16277_2016 AND wp 186t2 2017 tribals. That order has no bearing on the present case, which n". ",.";;; been adiudicated in CMA No. l10/2003 by the Additional Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam, whose decision is final and binding.

3.3 It is contended that thc petitioner has made inconsistent statements. In CMA No. I l0l2003, ir was observed that he, along with Sri Lavudya Munya and Sri DayaramAgarwal, jointly purchased the land in Sy.No. 16l12 through No. 1069/1977 dated 23.07.1977. However, writ petition, he claims an unregistered purchase in 1969. This suppression is delibera te, as the 1977 transaction occurred arler the commencement of Regulation l/70, which prohibits such transfers of immovable property between non_tribals in scheduled areas' Hence, the transaction is void, and the petitioner cannot claim rights through it. registered sale in the present

3.4 It is contended that the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal welfare' Parvancha, after thorough exa,ination of revenue records and statements, rightly passed orders in t-TR Case Nos. 355/g5/KGM and 654.94KGM' The petitioner failed to establish title or rbgar possession, and his appeals were dismissed by the apperate authority and the govemment' These decisions were base. on due consideration of all evidence.

3.5 It is also contended that the petitioner,s claim of continuous possession since lg6g is false. pursuant to the orders in the aforementioned LTR cases' the land was taken into govemment custody under panchanama on 04.12.1996. Since then, the land has remained with the Revenue Department, and the petitioner has no rawful claim or possession. 6 wo 15275 & 16277,2015 AND wp 18622 2017 NBK, J

4. A counter aftldavit, and also an additional counter atlidavit' has been fited by respondent No'6-Bukya Ramulu' contending that it is settled principte that documents not filed before the original or appellate authorities cannot be relied upon in revision' The petitioner has now filed presented in earlier documents in I.A. No' ll2O24 that were not proceedings, including LTR Case Nos' 355/1986/KGM and CMA No. ll0/2003 654llgg4lKc|r'r (decided on 25'03'1996)' and (decided on 28.03.2007). These documents appear to be manipulated' altered using different inks, and are therefore disputed' specihcatly' the Teensal Pahanis for 1955-56 to 1957-58 filed by the petitioner omit the name of my grandfather, Sri Bhu$a Harisingh' who was shown as the enjoyer in the official records obtained from the Deputl" Tahsildar' Kothagudem. The 1959-60 Pahani also shows interpolations' lrrom 1958- 59 to 1967 -68, the petitioner failed to produce valid Pahanis' and from 196647to196168,therespondentNo'6'sgrandfather'snarnewas replaced with that of Katakam Koti Reddy' The Pahanis from 1969-70 and lg70-71submitted by the petitioner are damaged or altqred' as endorsed by revenue ofticials.

4.1 It is contended that the petitioner claims to have obtained documents through the RTI Act; however' official responses from the Tahsildar's ofhce (letter dated 18'01'2023) confinn that no RTI applicationswerefiledbyhimduring20l8-202lfortherelevantsurvey numbers. Therefore, the authenticiry of the documents is questionable' and they cannot be considered.

4.2Itiscontendedthatthepetitionerreliesonasadasaledeed dated 24.04.1969, claiming purchase of Ac'2'23 gts in Sy'No'l6l/2 from Katapm Koti Reddy for Rs.20,600/-' This document, however' is only a 'r/ f) ' *r rrrrr*rf,irlatir)lllr1 NBK, J Xerox copy and was never submitted before any authority. Moreoveq a registered sale deed (Document No.106911977 dated 23.07. 1977) shows that the same land was purchased by three individuals_D ayaramAgarwal, Lavudiya Manya, and Vudumuta Sita Rama Reddy_for the same consideration' with no mention of the arege d 1969 transaction. This indicates the 1969 deed is fabricated to circumvent Regulation r of 1970, which prohibits Iand transactions with non-tribals in Schedured Areas.

4.3 Dayaram Agarwal and Lavudiya Manya, co_purchasers under the 1977 sale deed, testified in CMA No. ll0/200j that Sita Rama Reddy had no possession over Sy.No.16ll1, 16l12, or l6l/4 andhad relinquished his rights under the 1977 deed. The appear filed by rhe petirioner was thus not maintainable.

4.4 [t is contended that the petitioner also filed W.p. No. 1318211984 against land acquisition proceedings (Ret.No.Al4t7 t05/76 dated, 23.07.1984) conceming Sy.No.l6l/2 and 16113. In that writ affid'avit, he made no mention of either the rg6g sale deed or the rg77 deed, further suggesting these were fabricated later. r

4.5 The govemment, in G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07. 10.2016, found no evidence that Katakam Koti Reddy was the pattadar of Sy.No. I6112. The petitioner failed to provide any supporting documentation regarding Reddy's titre' The same G.o. recorded that my grandfather Bhukya Harisingh took a loan from the District cooperative central Bank, Khammam in r97B by mortgaging land in Sy.No. l6rlA and. 16r/2 (Ac'3 '04 gts), further confirming his possession and ownership. Additionally, Harisingh sold portions of the tand to Bhukya Bheema (27 gts), Dailal (20 gts), and Badavat HariLal (1.14 grs), retaining only 0.02 8 wo 35276 & 35277,2016 AND wp $621-2olt NgK, ] gts in Sy.No.16li2-consistent with Pahanis from 1987 to 1995' which show the petitioner's name only against 0'02 gts' 5. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the additional counter affidavitofRespondentNo.6.Itisassertedinthereplythattherewasno hmpering or fabrication of revenue records' and that he has hled ceftified copies of Pahanis lor 1954-55 to 1957-58 for Sy' No'161/2' showing Katakam Koti Reddy as both pattadar (Col' No'11) and enjoyer (Co[' No. l6). It is contended that the land in Sy' No'161/2' admeasuring Ac'2'23 gts., was purchased by me from Katakam Koti Reddy on 24-04-1969 through an unregistered sale deed' These revenue records support Reddy's title and possession at the time of sale'

5.1 Allegations of tampering or different ink usage are f-alse and baseless. It is contended that Pahani for 1959-60 filed by him was officialty certified by the Deputy Tahsildar' Kothagudem' There was no interpolation, and the record shows Reddy's ownership and my possession' and any interpolation in Pahanis for the years 1964-65' 1966-61 ' 1967-68' and 1970-71 is denied' All certified copies were obtained from the Tahsitdar (Respondent No'5), and no evidence of tampering was noted in the official records. It is contended that the 1969-70 Pahani on 20-12-2022' which shows Katakam Koti Reddy as owner and myself as possessor of the tand in Sy. No. l6l/2, Ac'2'23 gts' Though part of the document was tom' the entries are certifled and clear' This estabtishes my possession prior to the cutoff date (03-02-1970) of A'P' Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act, 111970, making the regulation inapplicable to my case' . Therefore, Respondents 1 to 3 lacked authority to issue ejectment orders'

5.2 It is contended that the Pahanis from 1970-71 to 1995-96 conlistently show Katakam Koti Reddy as pattadar and myself as enjoyer' ,/ Y n 9 wp 15276 & 38277_2016 AND wp-t862z 2017 possesslon possession status remains unchanged. The over Ac.2.1l gts, and 1995_96 without any interpolations. In l9g0-gl and l9g3_g4, tt,i, o*n...tip iil I987-88 Pahani shows my Pahani conf,rrms continued possession of the entire Ac.2.23 gts. petitioner denies all allegations made in paragraphs l2 to lg of the additional affidavit. Assertions that even.,X,, marks make the pahanis invalid are misleading and contrary to clear entries in the revenue records. It is contended that the craim that the petitioner did not approach the court with crean hands is baseress. I have submitted all relevant and certified revenue records in support of my ownership and possession, including in earlier proceedings and the present Writ Petition.

5.3 It is contended that the pahanis were obtained legally, and my possession has been continuous and uninterrupted since 1969. My vendor, Katakam Koti Reddy, held the land from 1954 to 1969. Respondent No.6 has not produced any valid revenue records to suppori his clairr. petitioner has also filed Katakam Koti Reddy,s Kisan Credit passbook, showing a loan taken on the property, disproving craims that the l4nd was vacant. cultivation continued until recent years. petitioner asserts that he has flled all available records before the primary Authorities, Revisional Authorities, and this court, and denies the aregation of'record tampering. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the leamed Govemment preader for Revenue, and the reamed counsel fbr Respondents 6 to 9. Perused the record. 7' Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the writ affidavit, and also thc reply affidavit fired in response to the additional counter affidavit of respondent No.6, would essentially contend that the impugned 10 wo 3s275 & 16277 2016 AND wp $622 2017 NBK,I G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07'10'2016 issued by Respondent No'I (Revisional Authority) is wholly unsustainable in law and fact; that it is arbitrary' passed in violation of principles of natural justice' and without jurisdiction under Regulation I of 1970; that the direction to take possession of Ac.2.23gts in Sy'No'161/2 into government custody is ex facie iilegal'

1.1 [t is contended that the transaction predates Regutation I of 1970; that the Petitioner purchased the land in Sy'No'161/2 (Acs'2'23 gts) under an unregistered sale deed dated 24'04'1969 from Katakam Koti Reddy, a non-tribal pattadar; that the transaction was completed prior to 01.12.1963 I 03'02'1970' the dates from which Regulation 1/70 became applicabte; that therefbre' the transfer is outside the purview of the Regulation, and the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate or entertain any LTR Proceedings'

7.2 It is also contended that vendor's Ownership has been established through Pahanies and Pass Book; that the Certified copies of Pahanies from 1954-55 to 1957-58 and subsequent years clearly reflect Katakam Koti Reddy as the pattadar and enjoyer of Sy.No.16r/2; that even the Kisan Credit l'ass Book in the name of the vendor and evidence of bank toan sanction substantiate ownership and enjoyment' T.3Itisalsocontendedthatthepetitionerhasbeenin uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the subject land since the date of purchase in 1969; that the Revenue records from 1969-70 onwards' includingPahaniesuptolgg5.g6,showthePetitionerastheenjoyerand hisvendorasthepattadar;thatthesecertifredrevenuedocumentsissuedby the Tahsitdar arc olhcial and have not been legally rebutted' ( - 11 wp 35276 & 36277 2016 AND wp 78622-2011 NBK, J 7 .4 It is also contended that the allegations of tampering, interpolation, or manipulation made by Respondent No.6 are unfounded, vague, and unsupported by any conclusive evidence; that au documents relied upon by the petitioner are certified copies issued by competent revenue authorities, and the record itself does not bear any objection or tampering marks officially endorsed.

7.5 [t is further contended that the Lambada community, to which Respondent No.6 belongs, was not notified as a scheduled Tribc until 27.07.1977 under G.O.Ms.No.g3g; that the sale took place prior to 1970, and hence no tribal interest existed at the time; that consequentry, Regulation l/70 does not apply, and no eviction can be ordered under Section 3(2)(a) thereof.

7.6 tfrpsh Fabricated It is further contended that the LTR proceedings Based on and Contradictory Claims; that the _ original LTR Case No.355/1985 initiated by Bhukya Lachu did not include Sy.No. l6ll2; that it was only in r993 that Sy.No.161/2 was maliciously added in a second petition leading to LTR Case No.654/1994, without notice or opportunity for the petitioner to rebut; that the clubbing of these cases, without procedural safeguards like cross_examination, is contrary to natural justice. It is further contended that both the Special Depury collector and the Appellate Authority passed orders without referring to or analyzing the substantial documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner; that the findings were based solely on oral allegations and incorrect revenue assumptions, such as erroneous mention of rand extents; that the unsubstantiated craims by Respondent No.6 - No Revenue Title or Possession; that the respondent No.6's claim is entirery devoid of title or possession documents for sy.No. 16 r /2; that the alleged Lavani patta in t/ - it-

1.2 wp 35276 & 35277 2015 AND wp-1a622 2O1/ NB(,I favor of Bhukya Harsingh is neither substantiated nor reflected in official certified records; that the Pahanies cited by Respondent No'6 are either selectivelyinterpretedorarecontradictedbytheolficialrecordfiledbythe Petitioner. T.TltiscontendedthatthePetitioner,sRightsareprotectedby Courts Since 1984; that the petitioner successfully challenged the land acquisition proceedings in WP' No' 1318211984' where this Hon'ble Court quashed the notification on 23'01'1986; that subsequent interim orders protecting possession have been in force throughout the LIR and revision proceedings.ltiscontendedthatthePetitionerhasdulylrledallavailable documentsbeiorethecompetentauthoritiesandbeforethisHon'bleCoutt; that the Petitioner has approached this Court with clean hands' relying solely on certified public documents; that the allegation of suppression or forgery is baseless and motivated'

7.8 It is also contended that neither the Petitioner was given a fair opportunity to rebut the oral evidence relied on by the authorities' nor was any material proof provided by Respondent No'6 to substantiate his counter-claims; that the ctubbing two unrelated LTR cases and acting upon asecond,contradictoryclaimwithoutfreshnoticeisprocedurallyunfair and unlawful S.LeamedGovemmentPleadeqbasedonthecounteraffidavitof respondentNo.4,contendsthatthewritpetitioniswho[lydevoidofmerit, as the allegations made by the petitioner are false, misconceived, and legally untenable. It is contended that the petitioner has misinterpreted G.O. Ms. No.43, dated 07.10.2016, issued by the Tribal Welfare Department, by alleging that the Govemment ordered the land to be taken 13 wp-35275 & t6277 2016 AND wP _14622 _2017 NBK, J into custody. on the contrary, the said G.o. clearry mandates restoration of the land to the legal heirs of Sri Bhukya Harisingh by vacating illegal encroachments, in accordance with the provisions ofAct I of 1977.

8.t The Govemment pleader further submits that the petitioner,s claim of purchase of the land through an unregistered sale deed in 1969 from Sri Koti Reddy cannot confer valid titre, especialry in Scheduled Areas, as per Section r 7( 1) of the Registration Act and rerevant provisions of the Transfer of property Act. The High court of Andhra pradesh has also held in cRp No. l9g7 of 1996 that unregistered sale deeds have no evidentiary value in such cases.

8.2 It is also highlighted that the claim of continuous possession since 1969 is factually incorrect, as the land was taken into Govemment custody on 04'12'1996 folrowing due process under the orders of the Special Deputy Collectoq Tribal Welfare, in LTR Ca_-"e Nos. 355/g5/l(GM and 654194/KGM' These orders were upherd on appear by the Additional Agent to the Govemment, making the issue res judicata. The Govemment Pleader also points out the petitioner's contradictory versio|q regarding the sale transaction, having artemately cited 1969 and rg77 as the date of purchase' l-he sale deed of 1977 is clearly after the commencement of Regulation 1 of 1970, which prohibits such transactions between non- tribals in Scheduled Areas, rendering the alleged sare void ab initio. It is emphasized that the judgment in LTR case No. 3lgl2ol2tt<GM, relied upon by the petitioner, is not binding as it was passed in a dispute between two non-tribals and the Govemment was not a party to it. Therefore, the Govemment Pleader submits that the petitioner has failed to estabrish any Iegal right or title over the subject land, and the writ petition is liabre to be dism issed. \ \ t4 wp-35276 & 35277-2015 AND wp 18622-2017 NBK, ] g. Leamed counsel for the unofficial respondents' based on counter affidavitofrespondentNo.6,contendsthatthewritpetitionisabuseof process of law, aimed at reopening issues that have already been adjudicated by competent authorities, and is based entirely on manipulated and fabricated documents' [t is asserted that the petitioner has sought to intioduce documents in the present writ proceedings that were never produced before either the original authority-i'e'' the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Wetfare in LTR Case Nos' 355/1986 and 65411994--or before the appeltate authority, namely, the Additional Agent to Govemment inCMANo.lt0/2003.Theintroductionofthesedocumentsatthisbelated stage, including tampered Tbensal Pahanis and altered revenue records' is a deliberate attempt to rnislead the Hon'ble Court and circumvent the binding findings of the lower forums' records relied upon bY the S.l The counsel submits that the I 95 5 to 1995-are petitioner--especially Pahanis lrom the of Respondent No.6's demonstrably manipulated. Notabty, the grandfather, Sri Bhukya Harisingh, was originally recordUd. as the enioyer of the subject land in Sy.No.16l/2 across multiple years' However' later entrieswereinterpolatedindifferentinksandhandwritingtoinsertthe petitioner'sname,ascorroboratedbyofficialendorsementsfromthe Deputy Tahsildar, Kothagudem. It is emphasized that for certain years' Such as 1959_50 and 1967-68, the official records were materially altered-removing the name of Harisingh and inserling that of Katakam Koti Reddy or the petitioner-clearly establishing tampering' g.2ItisfurthercontendedthatthepetitionerhasreliedonaSo- called sada Sale Deed dated24.04.1969, which is only a Xerox copy and ha\.never been presented in original before any authorit)'or the court' This 15 wp 15276 & f6277 2Ot5 ANO wp 14627 2017 NB(, J alleged sale is not reflected in the subseq uent Registered Sale Deed No.l069ll977 dated 23.07.1977, under which the same land was sold ro three individuals, namely Dayaram Agarwal, Lavudiya Manya, and Vudumula Sita R.ama Reddy_who includes the present petitioner. Impoftantly, this registered deed makes no reference to any earlier agreement or transaction from lg6g, thereby casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of the petitioner's claim of prior purchase. The 1977 sale deed, being post-Regulation I of 1970, is void in law as it relates to land in a Scheduled Area being transferred to non_tribals.

9.3 Additionally, the counsel points to the deposition of co_ purchasers Dayaram Agar.wal and Laurdiya Manya before the appellate authority, wherein they categorical[y stated that the petitioner had relinquished any claim under the 1977 sare deed and had no possession over the land. Moreoveq it is submitted that the petitioner's name does not appear as enjoyer ofthe land in Sy.No.l6112 from lgi} to l gg0, and only a nominal extent of 0.02 guntas is shown under his name from 19g7 to 1995, which further disproves any continuous possession. r

9.4 It is also argued that the documents now relied upon by the petitioner, incruding rhe manipulated pahanis and the aileged r969 sare deed, are not only inadmissible but were never presented before the revisional authority or rower courts. As such, they cannot form the basis for challenging the validity of the Government order in G.o.Ms.No.43 dated,07.10.2016, which itself affirms that the petitioner failed to prove any legal or possessory rights and confirms the ancestrar possession of Bhukya Harisingh, incruding his acr of morrgaging the land in 197g with the District cooperative centrar Bank. The G.o. furlher recognizes the \ 16 wp-35276 & 35277-2016 AND wp-18622 -2011 NBK, J alienationsmadebyHarisinghtoothertribalindividuals,andconfirmsthe minimal residual holding of the petitioner'

10. This court, vide interim order dated 27.10.2016, granted suspension ofG.o.Ms.No.43dated0T.l0.20l6.Likewise,videinterimorderdated 09.06.2017 , it granted suspension of the impugned Panchanama challenged in W.P. No. 18622 of 2017.

11. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the material on record, it is pertinent to note that the impugned revision order recordsthattheAdditionalAdvocateGeneral,afterduelerificationofthe records, observed that the transaction took place between a tribal and a non-tribal.

11.f In the appeal before the Additional Agent to Govemment' a question arose as to whether the registered sale deeds between the parties were execute d on 23.07 .1977, which is after the commencement of Regulation|170.|twasfurthernotedthatthelandissituatedina ScheduledArea.TheLambadasweredeclaredasSchedrledTribeswith effect from 27.07.1971 by Govemment Notification G'O' Ms' No' 838 dated 15.12.197':..Prior to that, they were treated as non-tribals'

12. It was also observed in the impugned order that in the present case, both parties were non-tribals, and therefore, the transaction in question is hit by Regulation 1/70 and is void. The impugned order further notes that the statements of v. Seetharama Reddy were inconsistent: before the 3rd respondent, he claimed no interest in Sur-vey Nos. 161/A and 161/1 (Ac'0- 26 and Ac.2-02 guntas, respectively) and asserted a claim only in Survey No. 161/2 (Ac.2-23 guntas). He claimed possession and cultivation of the said lqrd since 1970, stating that it was patta land and that Katakam Koti ,/ / 17 wp 35276 & 36277_2016 AND wp 14622 2017 NBK, J Reddy was the pattadar. Howeveq it remains unclear how the land came into the possession of Katakam Koti Reddy, from whom it is stated that V. Seetharama Reddy and two others purchased it via Sale Deed Nos. 1068177 and 1069/77 d.ated 23.07.t977. The appellate and revisional authorities found that the petitioners failed to prove that the land was not assigned to Bhukya Hari Singh. The pahani dated 24.0g.2001 shows Bhukya Hari Singh as pattadar, with others as enjoyers of Survey No. 16ll1. The Additional Agent to Govemment contirmed authority's order and directed that the schedule land be Govemment custody.

13. The Hon,ble Supreme Courr, in its judgment dated 14.07.19gg in p. Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra pradeshr, observed as follows: ',As a matter of fact it would be unreasonable and unfair to hold that the impugned provisions are unreasonable on this account. Surely it is not unreasonable to restore upto the ,tribals. what originally belonged to them out of which they were deprived as a result of exploitative invasion on the part of ,non_tribals,. ln the first place should lessons not be drawn from past expArience to plug the loop-holes and prevent future recourse to devices to flout the law? The community cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the competition between the ,tribals, partakes of the character of a race between a handicapped one-legged person and an able bodied two legged person. True, transfer by ,non- tribars' to 'non-tribar wourd not diminish the poor. rt wourd maintain status quo. But is it sufficient or fair enough to freeze the exploitative deprivation of the.tribals,and thereby legalize and perpetuate the past-wrong instead of effacing the same? As a matter of fact it would be unjust, unfair and highly unreasonable merely to freeze the situation instead of reversing the injustice and and the ,non_tribals, 11988 (3) scc 433 \ \ I 18 wp,3s275 & 35277 2016 AND wp-18622 2077 NBK. ] restoring the status-quo-ante' The provisions merely command that if a land holder voluntarily and on his own volition is desirous of alienating the land, he may do so only in a favour of a'tribal" lt would be adding insult to iniury to impose such a disability only on the tribals (the victims of oppression and exploitation themselves) and discriminate against them in this regard whilst leaving the 'non-tribals' to thrive on the fruits of their exploitation at the cost of 'tribals'' The 'non-tribal' economic exploiters cannot be installed on the pedestal of immunity and accorded a privileged treatment by permitting, them to transfer the lands and structures' if any, raised on such lands, to 'non-tribals' and make profits at the cost of the tribals. lt would not only be tantamount to perpetuating the exploitation and iniustice, it would tantamount to placing premium on the exploitation and iniustice perpetrated by the non- tribals. Thus it would be the height of u nreasonableness to impose the disability only on the tribals whilst leaving out the'non-tribals' tt would also be counter-productive to do so' lt must also be emphasized that to freeze the pool of lands available to the'tribals' at the present level is virtually to diminish the pool' There is no escape from this outcome because the realities of life being what they are with the population increase amongst the tribals remaining unfrozen' increase in their population will a tomatically diminish the size of their pool if the same is frozen' No unreasonableness therefore is involved in making the prohibition against transfer to'non- tribals' applicable to both the 'tribal' as also to the non- tribal' owners in the scheduled area' As a matter of fact it would have been unreasonable to do otherwise' ln the absence of protection, the economically stronger 'non-tribals' would in course of time devour all the available lands and wipe out the very identity of the tribals who cannot survive in the absence oftheonlysourceoflivelihoodtheypresentlyhave.ltisprecisely for this reason that the Architects of the Constitution have with farsight and foresight provided in paragraph 5(2) of Fifth Schedule that the Governor may make regulations inter alia"prohibiting or \restricting the transfer of land in the scheduled areas \ Y 19 wp 35276 & J6277_2018 AND wp 14622 20].7 NBK, ] notwithstanding any provision embodied in the Constitution elsewhere". And as has emerged from the foregoing discussion, it is unreasonable to restrict the prohibition against transfer to 'tribals'. lt has to be made comprehensive enough to embrace the 'non-tribals' as well. With the improvement in the economic conditions of the ,tribals,, there would not be much difficulty in finding 'tribal' purchasers. Besides, Section 3(1)(c) thoughtfully provides even for the contingency of not being able to find a 'tribal' willing or prepared to purchase the property. This provision obliges the State Government to acquire the property on payment of compensation as provided therein. One can envisage that some hardship would be occasioned to the owners to lands I ocated in the scheduled areas. But such hardship would operate e qually on the 'tribals' as well as the ,non_tribals,. hardship thstanding keeping in mind the larger perspective of the interest of the community in its entirety in the light of the foregoing discussion, the restrictions cannot be condemned as unreasonable. More so if the factor that the original acquisition by 'non-tribals. from .tribals. was polluted by the sins of exploitation committed by the non-tribals' is not ignored.,, Such It is to be noted that the purport of Scheduled Areas Land rransfer Regulations ll1959, as amended by Land Transfer Regulatibns l/1970, is to permit transfer of ,and between two tribals, and from a non-tribar to tribal; and to prohibit transfer of rands between two non-tribals and from a tribal to non-tribal. In effect, the Reguration s r/rg70 sripulate that if a non- tribal happens to be in possession of tand in Scheduled Areas (Agency Areas) and intends to transfer it after the Lar.rd rransfer Regurations have come into effect, he can transfer only in favour of a tribal; or, in the altemative, approach the Agent to Government with a proposal to surrender the land and seek appropriate compensation against the land. The Government can acquire the land from non_tribal by paying compensation, \ 20 wo 15276 & 36277-2016 AND lA6Zl 2017 NBK, J and thereafter assign the land in favour of an eligible tribat' The Land Transfer Regulations 1/1959 (as amended by LTR l/1970) does not stipulate any other mode of transfer other than the ones stipulated above' lor eflecting transfer of land by a non-tribal' In other words' in a land sale transaction in a Scheduled Area (Agency Areas)' the status of vendor (seller) is immaterial and the status of vendee (buyer) should invariably be a "tribal" or "Government" (for re-allotment to an eligible tribal); and any transaction that does not comply with this stipulation becomes illegai' 14. [n the instant writ petitions, the dispute primalily' is with regard to nature of land and the status of individuals in the land transaction' Admittedty, the lands in Survey No.16llA (Ac'0-26 guntas)' Survey No.l6l/l (Ac.2-02 guntas), Survey No'161/2 (Ac'2-23 guntas) are (iovemment lands located in Scheduled Area and the)' are assigned in lavour of Bhukya Hari Singh who is a tribal' Further' it is to be noted that the sale deeds, registered or otherwise' relied on by the petitioners are of the year 1977 by the date of which the Regulation lll97O has come into force. And therefore, the very transfer of land betweetr,Katakam Koti Reddy and V. Seetharama Reddy (i'e', between non-tribals)' or the sale of land by Bhukya Hari Singh in favour of Katakam Koti Reddy (from a tribal to a non-tribal) is impermissible in view of the land transfer regulations in LTR 1llg7o, and also against the purport of the judgment of Hon' ble Supreme Court in P. Rami Reddy (supra)' A perusal of the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 07'10'2016 would show that the 1,1 respondent in fact upheld the possession of land by the tribals and set aside the direction insofar as resumption of lands from tribals to the custody of Govemment. In that view of the matter, this court does not l- 'f 2J, find any illegalilJ in the impugned Order passed in the Revision petition vide G.O.Ms.No.43. wp 3s276 & 16277 2016 ANO wp 19622 2017 NBK, ]

15. orders The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. The interim dated 27.10.2016 passed W.P.No.35276 of 2016 and W.P.No.36277 of 2016, and rhe inrerim orders dated 09.06.2017 passed in W.P.No. I8622 of 2017 shall stand vacated. It shall be open to the respondent-authorities to take appropriate action in respect of subject lands, rn accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/.M. OSMAN ALI BAIG TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER One CC to SRI P VISHNUVARDH ANA REDDY, AdVoca te [OPUC] One CC to SRI P.V.RAMANA , Advocate [OPUC Two CCs to GP FOR SOCTA L WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad louTl One CC to SRI M.V.HANU MANTHA RAO, Advocate loPUCl One CC to SRI G.|VIADHU SUDHAN REDDY, Advoca tel One CC to SRt RAV| CHANDRA BEJJARAM, Advocate Two CD Copies oPUCI loPUCl t ry, To 1 2 3 4 6 7 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:1 010912025 CC TODAY 7j J-r 'r) ,s .$ V .!, i.( ,i :-:; .1/ -,4,/ *':l .-5-' COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.3 5276 AND 36277 of 2016 AND WP.No.18622 o12017 I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 1 \T t .1 1